While I understand that he probably should have been taking more safety precautions, this has to be the most ridiculous sense of entitlement I have ever seen. Christie Blatchford: Family of teen fatally struck by SUV sued by motorist for her ?pain and suffering? | National Post
Woman hits young cyclist, sues his estate for damages.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Greed,what a heartless [email protected]#t
Joined
·
177 Posts
:thumbsup:
Joined
·
489 Posts
Did you see that the family also lost a older sibling to drugs and alchol. That poor family is having the worst things happening then this stupid lawsuit.
BIll
BIll
Joined
·
4,200 Posts
That's a horrible story. While it's true that bikers should be wearing light reflecting clothing, have reflectors and lights on their bike while riding at night I can't believe that this women feels justified in suing the families of these kids. Didn't she have her lights on? What kind of road is this that had no street lights? The fact that she was not charged with anything should already alleviate her sense of blame and guilt. To go after the families of the kids is simply cruel, too cruel.
I predict much more pain and suffering for this woman.
Joined
·
870 Posts
lol....now that's a lawyer!!!
Joined
·
505 Posts
After reading the article, it sounds retaliatory. The article mentioned the parents have a $900k suit already filed against them. Playing devil's advocate, if I truly wasn't in the wrong and someone sued me, I might be a c$&t about it too.
That said, this course of action will win her zero popular support.
That said, this course of action will win her zero popular support.
Joined
·
6,919 Posts
Has NO LEGS to stand in court......it will be thrown out, due to the fact Simon HIT and killed the cyclist period. She caused her own pain and suffering. Nothing will make her whole again.
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
How I read it, the Simons sued first and the victim's family counter sued. Although I have to admit the article isn't clear as to the sequence of legal actions here.
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
At the end of the day this is most certainly the likely outcome. It's a frivolous lawsuit.
Joined
·
463 Posts
Doesnt play well in the news; it sounds like the killer is saying that she feels bad for killing one cyclst, severely injuring another, and it is their fault for being in her path. We have all been incensed at others for behaving in ways that cause near-misses, or maybe in disputes over whose "right-of-way" is the more important.
This is yellow journalism; heightens emotion, draws clicks, increases ad revenue. I cant comment on the Canadian legal system; it sounds like she's suing the estate of a dead person that likely contains zero, and two living boys that have little to even retain counsel and defend themselves. Slee Stak has it right, I think; its to distract and retaliate.
The lawsuits clog up the courts, but we respond to an interesting point; when a driver strikes another car, large animal, etc. in the road, most U.S. states consider the driver at least partly at fault for not being fully in contro; overdriving ones headlights and one's ability to react is NOT a defense when hitting a parked car, for example.
Cyclists are considered an annoying nuisance, and their rights to the road, even when legally protected, are still literally outweighed by automobiles' 'rights".
Stay safe, use all safety gear, get off the pavement if you must and carry a cell phone. A recent supreme court decison in the U.S. affirms the right of police to pull over any suspect driver, based on a 911 call. Imagine flashing lights a mile or two up the road.
This is yellow journalism; heightens emotion, draws clicks, increases ad revenue. I cant comment on the Canadian legal system; it sounds like she's suing the estate of a dead person that likely contains zero, and two living boys that have little to even retain counsel and defend themselves. Slee Stak has it right, I think; its to distract and retaliate.
The lawsuits clog up the courts, but we respond to an interesting point; when a driver strikes another car, large animal, etc. in the road, most U.S. states consider the driver at least partly at fault for not being fully in contro; overdriving ones headlights and one's ability to react is NOT a defense when hitting a parked car, for example.
Cyclists are considered an annoying nuisance, and their rights to the road, even when legally protected, are still literally outweighed by automobiles' 'rights".
Stay safe, use all safety gear, get off the pavement if you must and carry a cell phone. A recent supreme court decison in the U.S. affirms the right of police to pull over any suspect driver, based on a 911 call. Imagine flashing lights a mile or two up the road.
Joined
·
973 Posts
The article paints her in an unnecessarily bad light. I'm not sure I would have taken her case, but I can't say it is frivolous.
Imagine if, rather than riding bikes, the boys were in a dark, slow moving bulldozer. They would barely have felt the impact, but the other driver sure would have. The boys would likely be found negligent in driving an unlighted bulldozer and that that negligence was the cause of the accident (assuming no alcohol or distractions).
So how does the fact they were on bikes rather than another vehicle change things? How does the fact she suffered only emotionally rather than physically change things?
It is a tough situation.
Imagine if, rather than riding bikes, the boys were in a dark, slow moving bulldozer. They would barely have felt the impact, but the other driver sure would have. The boys would likely be found negligent in driving an unlighted bulldozer and that that negligence was the cause of the accident (assuming no alcohol or distractions).
So how does the fact they were on bikes rather than another vehicle change things? How does the fact she suffered only emotionally rather than physically change things?
It is a tough situation.
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
You have to have a license and insurance to drive a bulldozer on the road whereas the cyclists don't. So if you're driving a motorized vehicle like that then you also assume a different set of legal responsibilities than a cyclist would.
Ah ha the plot thickens,I also will be very curious about this now.
Joined
·
463 Posts
It is a tough situation.
Certainly is, but I have to ask if loss of life changes the calculus for a situation like this?
If not, why not?
A few million years ago when I was in HS taking driver's training we were taught to drive within our limits; slow down at night, for example. in my local area it remains common for drivers to hit deer at night, especially on major highways. It is seldom seen on secondary roads, and unheard of on the gravel roads that we have plenty of.
A modern automobile's headlights illuminate a wide enough area, far enough ahead, that deer are seldom or never struck by cars going 50 mph. 60 mph puts drivers on the ragged edge...younger drivers with clear vision and speedy reactions MAY be able to avoid a collision. 70mph crosses the line.
Im suggesting that by refusing to calculate loss of life differently than loss of convenience, society is crossing a line that impoverishes us all. If Simon is forced to carry an emotional burden for her part in this, all of the court action in the world will fail to remove that burden.
That young man may or may not have been destined to make some sort of mark on the world, but we'll never know. Right Now Simon's mark isn't a very proud one. Perhaps being saddled with a burden like that is God's (or Karma...or the universe's) way of making something useful come from the tragedy after all. Maybe she'll teach someone to slow down and be careful about others in honor of the lost young man.
Certainly is, but I have to ask if loss of life changes the calculus for a situation like this?
If not, why not?
A few million years ago when I was in HS taking driver's training we were taught to drive within our limits; slow down at night, for example. in my local area it remains common for drivers to hit deer at night, especially on major highways. It is seldom seen on secondary roads, and unheard of on the gravel roads that we have plenty of.
A modern automobile's headlights illuminate a wide enough area, far enough ahead, that deer are seldom or never struck by cars going 50 mph. 60 mph puts drivers on the ragged edge...younger drivers with clear vision and speedy reactions MAY be able to avoid a collision. 70mph crosses the line.
Im suggesting that by refusing to calculate loss of life differently than loss of convenience, society is crossing a line that impoverishes us all. If Simon is forced to carry an emotional burden for her part in this, all of the court action in the world will fail to remove that burden.
That young man may or may not have been destined to make some sort of mark on the world, but we'll never know. Right Now Simon's mark isn't a very proud one. Perhaps being saddled with a burden like that is God's (or Karma...or the universe's) way of making something useful come from the tragedy after all. Maybe she'll teach someone to slow down and be careful about others in honor of the lost young man.
I am going to sue this woman for my pain and suffering for having to read about this!
I caught the same from the article, although im not exactly sure who filed lawsuits first.. i did see both parties are suing each other... It seems like both parties are at fault, and now both are suing each other..
I saw that, but didnt it also say he works for a different department than the department that investigated the crash? and that there is no proof that the husband or the investigators knew each other?
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
